D&D 5E Giving 5th Edition a look but...

[Dannorn]

Thanks to everyone for the responses, it seems I didn't give 4e enough of a chance, so if 5e initially doesn't seem like my thing I will remember to look in from time to time.

Now a number of you have brought this up but because they were first...

Uh, before this thread implodes: The fighter doesn't have spells in 4E. They have feats (you know, as in the actual dictionary definition of the word) of martial skill, endurance and strength. Those are trained maneuvers, tricks and combat techniques. Not spells.

Thanks for the clarification; however in terms of presentation, description, and execution they are identical to the wizard's spells (as presented in the Class section). Every level you gain x new ones, you can use each one once a day, encounter, etc., they could even achieve a lot of the same things.

My fault though, I added that as an afterthought because it has bugged me for a long time, but it should have read closer to: Fighter abilities are presented identically to spells, is there any actual difference in gameplay and if not what's the point of calling them something else?

You're pretty new around here. Welcome.

Realize for some people 4e is their favorite edition, and they post here, too. And you used quite a few trigger words for a number of people in your post.

Thaumaturge.

Sort of realized that after I wrote it, and I do apologize if my post seems inflammatory that was not my intention.

 

[fba827]

Thanks to everyone for the responses, it seems I didn't give 4e enough of a chance, so if 5e initially doesn't seem like my thing I will remember to look in from time to time.

Now a number of you have brought this up but because they were first...



Thanks for the clarification; however in terms of presentation, description, and execution they are identical to the wizard's spells (as presented in the Class section). Every level you gain x new ones, you can use each one once a day, encounter, etc., they could even achieve a lot of the same things.

My fault though, I added that as an afterthought because it has bugged me for a long time, but it should have read closer to: Fighter abilities are presented identically to spells, is there any actual difference in gameplay and if not what's the point of calling them something else?



Sort of realized that after I wrote it, and I do apologize if my post seems inflammatory that was not my intention.

With d&d rule sets it's typically helpful to revisit a rule set later just to see how it's evolved if the initial release didn't appeal to you.

As an example ( not trying to beat a dead horse, just using it as an example since it's the example that you mentioned) in 4e the initial fighter presentation turned you off, but there was a fighter released later in 4e with a different presentation style that would probably have been more what you were looking for.

Likewise there was no reason you couldn't play against type, just from the initial products but also as supplements came out there were more and more options to do so. I would have to go back and reread -just- the initial 3e phb to be sure but I suspect the options to play against type were the same at initial release. It's only because you have a larger library to draw from in 3 compared to the one initial book in 4 that it may not have felt that way.

But that's all assumption based on the info here.. I Don't mean to quibble over little points, but all I'm trying to say is, for 5e if it doesn't appeal to you right away then check it out later down the road and see f future supplements don't address some issue that you initially had.

 

[Jester David]

Now first question is did I misread 4e? Was it not actually that structured and you could play against type if you wanted to?

No.
Well, you can kinda play against type if you're *really* good at the game. A well built fighter can move from tanking to damage when compared to an average striker (damage dealer). However, an equally well built striker will always out pace a fighter.

In deference to the 4e fans, this was not entirely a bad thing. 4e sacrificed flexibility in favour of structure, which made for a much, much more balanced and consistent play experience. Fighters were really good at what they did and have a solid role in the party.

Second question, from the play test material does 5e have that same rigidity (real or imagined)? Does the class section basically hand me a completed character sheet or can I actually make a character from the ground up?

D&D5 is much more like earlier editions in terms of class design. Download the Basic rules when you get a chance and see for yourself. You might be pleasantly surprised.

Unrelated, this was just something I found weird not something that turned me off 4e, does the Fighter still have spells? Why does/did the Fighter have spells?

No.
The basic fighter has some special abilities but these are very much not spells. And the fighter can opt into maneuvers, which are special attacks but that work very differently than spells.

 

[Dungeoneer]

in terms of presentation, description, and execution they are identical to the wizard's spells (as presented in the Class section). Every level you gain x new ones, you can use each one once a day, encounter, etc., they could even achieve a lot of the same things.

4e attempted to give some consistency to all the disparate sub-systems that had accumulated in D&D through the years. Maybe there was a little TOO much consistently early on (later books, and especially the Essentials classes, changed things up a bit).

That said, the way things are presented on a page and the way they work in actual play on a battle mat are two different things. I've played lots of 4e and playing a wizard and a fighter couldn't feel more different. When you play as a fighter you are trying to 'mark' monsters 1-or-2 at a time and keep them from moving past you and attacking the squishier members of your party. When you play as a wizard you are using spells to alter the battlefield in ways that are advantageous to your party, and you are also trying to blow up groups of minions.

Wizards and fighters in 4e have different 'jobs' (known as Controller and Defender, respectively) and you really feel that when you play them. But within those 'jobs' the designers still managed to make individual classes feel different. For instance, a Swordmage has a very different approach to holding the front line than a fighter does, even though they are both trying to do the same thing.

Strikers, whose job is basically to do damage to one creature at a time, are even more diverse. Rogues, rangers, monks, sorcerers... they all play very differently.

Don't let the fact that everything is presented in nice, tidy stat blocks fool you. The 4e game is still diverse, flexible and full of players pulling wacky stunts. It's all just formatted to appeal to those of us who are a bit OCD.

The fairest criticism of 4e is one you have to play for a while to really have: combat takes too long.

 

[Blackbrrd]

@OP I think that 4e was too rigid. With just the PHB it was pretty difficult to create the exact character you wanted*. With about 15 splat books, you can create just about any character. Needing 15 splat books to do that is somewhat of a flaw in my eyes.

Looking at what you didn't like with 4e, I am surprised that you don't think you will like 5e. To me, it looks like 5e doesn't have the same problems 4e had. For instance, with just the PHB you will have a game with a truckload of options, equivalent to maybe 5-6 4e books, but in a lot fewer pages. It should be pretty easy to create just the character you want with just with the PHB.

When it comes to running the game, the 5e DMG is also going to have a lot of optional rules that you can use to suit your needs.

*I recently made a Paladin/Sorcerer hybrid that's really quite different and doesn't really fit into the "roles" model.

 

[The Human Target]

Its actually easier to make a great sword wielding wizard or charismatic fighter in 4e than 3e.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Fighter abilities are presented identically to spells, is there any actual difference in gameplay and if not what's the point of calling them something else?.

They're /very/ different in play, yes. The formatting is the same for all powers, but the content is very different. With the Fighter vs Wizard, it's particularly pronounced. For instance, all fighter attack powers use weapons, while all wizard attack powers use implements. Fighter attack powers are primarily melee with a few close, while wizards are overwhelmingly range & area, and virtually never melee. Wizards do typed damage over large areas like crazy and attack non-AC defenses, while fighters virtually always attack adjacent targets' AC for untyped damage. You could go on and on with the mechanical differences, let alone the conceptual and 'fluff' differences, or the way each class's features synergize with its powers.

You can find closer similarities if you compare classes of different sources but the same role - but still not all that close.

It's an understandable mistake, though. 4e classes are presented in a uniform format with a uniform progression. While that's great for clarity and balance, it does create the illusion that they are much less differentiated than they actually are.

 

[RotGrub]

Unrelated, this was just something I found weird not something that turned me off 4e, does the Fighter still have spells? Why does/did the Fighter have spells?

Yes, he can cast Second Wind.